My primary interest in the redefinition of marriage stems from the public meaning of marriage, and its significance to the public common good. What you’re saying about gender really doesn’t address this public dimension, but is primarily about the lived experience of private relationships. Even if I were to accept all that you say about the reality of same-sex relationships, the question remains — what is the public meaning and significance of marriage?

The whole idea of “gender” reflected in your posts is that it’s just a bundle of attributes that are largely socially determined, and that can be revised according to the subjective desires of the individual. That’s an interesting point, and one that I partly agree with — certainly many sex roles are determined by the time and place in which one lives, and are merely customary.

But in the debate over the legal redefinition of marriage I think it’s beside the point. The public meaning and definition of marriage that we hold to is not a mere social construct — we see it as inherent in the nature of male and female, something that has normative force, something that reflects universal truths that have been recognized by every society in history. That’s why I keep stressing “sexual difference”, which is, after all, a biological reality, independent of any social values attributed to it.

The burden of proof in this debate is with those who would redefine marriage and replace it with something else. Assuming away sexual difference, and replacing it with a malleable notion of “gender”, fails to meet the burden of proof, because it assumes the conclusion.

Again, George et al. make this argument in much more detail.

As for Mr. Capelli’s comment, I don’t have the time or energy to reply to every comment posted on this blog. Frankly, I don’t know enough about the issues he raises (the impact of same-sex sexual behavior on individuals, and then indirectly on the public health) to intelligently comment. As I’ve said, for me, the public significance of redefining marriage — particularly the removal of the child-centered nature of marriage — is the key consequential point of departure for the debate.

I don’t assume anything away at all, and I am not closing the conversation at all by my notion. As you said “different things should be treated differently.” You are equating gender to sexual differences. They are not equal at all. That’s the point that I made when I said: “The main argument I have is about the difference of gender and sex and the fact that the Church speaks the “Truth” about everything. Sex is the biological difference between men and women (physical differences). Gender is the type of behavior a man or woman should have, according to society, (namely masculinity and femininity). Who is able to define gender accordingly? Who in our society is more masculine or more feminine? Who’s to say that a man is acting like a woman or a woman like a man, without our basic “stereotyping?” So, gender does not constitute sexual differences at all. It’s based on behavior, not biological differences.

Additionally, I only managed to read parts of the article you cited (as I’ve been busy with engineering projects as the semester is ending). Another problem I have in both what you say and what the articles suggest is the assumption that only heterosexual unions resemble sexual union. Same-sex unions are able to fulfill a sexual union too, obviously in a different way. It’s not a mere “friends with benefits” situation. I don’t think people realize this at all. There is a clear connection between people, that many people just refuse to see. You’re basing all of this on pure logic, but not of experience or understanding. I truly believe this is the problem. When people get so caught up in defining things, the true meaning of a word (the actual experience that the word represents) becomes lost.

On another note, the Church and its bloggers should become more supportive of LGBT youth and the bullying that persists in the educational system and in the Christian community. This does not entail sending people to Courage. I’m talking about a neutral-safe place for people to go, in which neither the left nor the right rule, but where people hear from different sides and choose how to live their lives. I think it’s completely ridiculous to focus on the marriage debate when there are so many teenagers struggling with parts of themselves and even killing themselves because they are ashamed of it.

You assume the whole argument away when you say “But gender shouldn’t matter at all in anything”. You then essentially argue that “marriage” can mean whatever you want it to mean. And, in fact, you’re right, in a way — if we rule out gender, then “marriage” can mean anything, or nothing. It’s all in the eye of the beholder.

The problem is, the idea that “gender shouldn’t matter” isn’t a premise for a conversation, it’s a question-begging value judgment, and one that we (and the entirety of history, not to mention evolutionary psychology and biology) reject as unfounded.

Our position rests on the notion that sexual difference can’t be assumed away. The complementary (i.e., different, equal, and necessarily interdependent) nature of male and female sexuality is a constitutive element of what it is to be a human being. This is much better stated by Robbie George et al. in the articles I’ve cited to you, which I would encourage you to read and consider.

In our view, sexual difference is inherent to the definition of marriage — without that, there is no orientation to children, no answer to the need for sexual union and completeness, and, in short, there isn’t anything that resembles “marriage”. Instead, there’s something different — “friends with benefits”, perhaps. That’s why we believe that conjugal (i.e., male/female) marriage must be treated differently in law than other relationships (e.g., same-sex partnerships). Different things should be treated differently.

You addressed legal concerns in the comment, but what about philosophical? Additionally, you never addressed Victor C. Capelli’s comment. And please explain just how expanding marriage would negatively impact the common good for all?

Your post was meant to highlight philosophical arguments in the debate. However, your comment gives a “solution”. You’re not even addressing our points. How is that being open to a conversation at all?

Mr. Mechmann, I am a lesbian who will be marrying my partner next year in Massachusetts. You say: “Likewise, in the ongoing debate about marriage, reason and the common good of adults and children — and future generations — continues to be brushed aside by emotion and special interest politics.”

Three years ago, my father passed away very suddenly of a heart attack – a devastating moment for my brothers and my mother. As his wife, she was allowed to identify his body in the hospital and say one final goodbye. As a widow, she was able to benefit from social security, life insurance, and other payments which have kept her from being destitute. Similarly, as my father was a veteran, she has received veterans’ spouses compensation.

Insisting that my partner and I are denied the same rights my mother had during a tragic time does not ensure the common good of adults. It certainly doesn’t ensure security in my relationship, nor does it in thousands of others. I fail to see how this is special interest politics, and rather a simple request for recognition and dignity.

Thank you.

I appreciate the lack of effort in reading my post, and your usage of poor arguments to support yourself. People like you are the ones who Mr. Mechmann refer to as “philosophically unsophisticated” by throwing random information without backing up anything. You make statements and do not justify them. Sad to see that you live in a bubble.